Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c10: 1. Stone Age Techniques

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c10

Language
English

Contents

1. Stone Age Techniques

v1.c10.1

The basic objective in Stone Age was to obtain desired shapes by breaking rock pieces. The artificial chipping of stones is termed in prehistory as ‘Flaking’. In all the three stages of Stone Age, e.g., the Palaeolithic, the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, various ways or methods of flaking were initiated and practised. It was only in the Neolithic period, modification of tool-surfaces was also done by grinding. It may, therefore be held that, the history of lithic technology is more or less an account of flaking techniques. Methods of tool making during Stone Age are marked by two noteworthy trends viz., process of evolution or development of techniques from crude to refine, and universality in the succession of technological stages through out the world. The first pattern has been discussed in this paper a little later. The second trend does not bear direct relevance to the present theme. But, it may be mentioned that the element of universality has been explained by the anthropologists in terms of the ‘psychic unity of man kind’ (Herskovits, 1955, p. 111). Inspite of this general pattern of development each of the region has its own set of evidence which has contributed, in one way or the other. It is more in case of the history of techniques of the Stone Age, as the remains of the prehistoric period are of very fragmentary nature.

v1.c10.2

Data obtained from various regions, thus, needs to be woven together in such a way that the acquired set of evidence is critically viewed against the known history, and also adds towards enriching the knowledge further.

v1.c10.3

Our understanding of Stone Age technology depends on the collective efforts of the international galaxy of scholars. The experiments conducted by French prehistorians such as Bordes (1947; 1961), Tixier (1963), the British prehistorian Leakey, L.S.B. (1967), and the American prehistorian Crabtree, D. (Bordes & Crabtree, 1969), are glaring examples. Not only have they explained various methods of tool making, but they have also provided objective terminologies and ways for the study of the lithic collections (Leakey, 1967; Bordes, 1961; Movius, 1948; Tixier, 1963). Utilization of the important methodologies and the related terms is imperative for the study of prehistoric evidence for any region. Unfortunately, due to historical reasons, there have been shifts and changes of terminologies in the studies of Stone Age in India. The terms denoting periodization, as well as, techniques were effected by this. For example, Palaeolithic- Mesolithic set of terms was replaced by the Stone Age set, e.g., Early Stone Age for Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Stone Age for Middle Palaeolithic and Late Stone Age for Mesolithic.

v1.c10.4

But about a decade later the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic set was again found useful (Misra, 1962 pp. 113-124; Jayaswal, 1978, pp. 10-11; Agrawal, & Ghosh, 1972, pp. 504-509).

v1.c10.5

Similarly, ‘Prepared Core’, ‘Faceted Core’, ‘Faceted Striking Platform’ etc., were the names which replaced the term *Levallois technique* in Africa (PROPA , 1952, p. 9). This was followed in India. Such changes have apparently added much confusion to the study of prehistoric remains. The author supports Bordes’ plea (Bordes 1961, p.13) and holds that the terms related to technique denote a specific process or method of working only. These do not suggest any cultural implications even if the name has been coined after a site of some far distant foreign land (Jayaswal, 1978, pp. 19-22). It may be mentioned that this author prefers to use all such nomenclatures which have wide acceptance in the literature on World Prehistory. This includes all terms denoting periodization, techno-culture stages, tool-types and techniques.

v1.c10.6

On the basis of these reasons, the proposed study of Stone Age technologies in India has been viewed against the background of the evidence retrieved from all the important regions of the world. The account of the technologies has been divided initially within three parts - the Palaeolithic, the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. The technological features of India in each of the section has been discussed after a resume of important techniques which were prevalent during each of the three stages. It may also be put to record that the observations made on technological characteristics of the Palaeolithic remains in India are based on the author’s own studies. While working on the Palaeolithic techniques and problem of Pebble-tools, all the important prehistoric collections of the country were examined by Jayaswal (1978; 1982). Besides, relevant published reports were also found useful, particularly in view of chronological observations.

I. Techniques of the Palaeolithic Period

v1.c10.s1.1

Numerous techniques which were prevalent during Palaeolithic Period, on the basis of the aims of their utility can be grouped within three categories. A. Techniques used for shaping tools B. Techniques for detaching flakes and blades C. Techniques for modifying edge or tip of tools

A. Techniques used for shaping Tools

v1.c10.s1.t1.1

Tool making in human history was initiated at about 1.8 to 2 million years ago. The Pleistocene sequence and the absolute dates, which are obtained from the Olduvai Gorge and other sites of East Africa, provide evidence for this incident (Leakey L.S.B., 1965; Clark, 1982, ‘pp. 30-34). The earliest form which man made was, one edged crude chopping or cutting implement (Leakey L.S.B., 1951). The only effort made in this case was to acquire an edge on small to medium sized pebble or cobble. Flaking of one surface (unifacial) at an end of the select piece of rock, or from both the surfaces (bifacial) of the same edge (Fig.1), could provide the desired form of working implement.

v1.c10.s1.t1.2

On account of the nature of flaking this group of tools are broadly divided into Chopper (the one with unifacially flaked edge), and Chopping tool (the bifacially flaked specimen).

v1.c10.s1.t1.3

These terminologies received wide acceptance after being introduced by Movius (Movius, 1948, pp. 329-420). As their techno-typological categories are made mostly on pebbles, the other frequently used nomenclature for this group is Pebble tools (Bordes, 1968; Jayaswal, 1982).

v1.c10.s1.t1.6

Fig.1. Chopper, Chopping tool & By-product flake

v1.c10.s1.t1.7

Besides East Africa where Pebble tools or ‘Oldowan culture (a term used after the type site Olduvai Gorge) remains’ occur in the earliest context (Leakey, L.S.B., 1951), the spread of this tool tradition in a little later context is also reported from North and South Africa, western Europe, Central, South and South- east Asia (Bordes, 1968, pp. 83-97). Pebble tools in India have concentration in the north and north-west, which appears to form part of the south-east Asian spread of this tradition (Jayaswal, 1982, p.2). Besides, there are also a few small pockets in peninsular India where chopper and chopping tool tradition existed in culture isolation (Jayaswal, 1982, pp. 57-83).

v1.c10.s1.t1.8

Chopper and chopping tools of the earliest facies were made by direct percussion stone hammer technique. In the later period the same morphology of these tools were attained also by the use of the direct percussion cylinder hammer or soft hammer technique.

A.1 Direct Percussion Stone Hammer Technique

v1.c10.s1.t2.1

In this method the selected piece of stone which is to be converted into a tool, is held in one hand (generally in left hand). A medium sized, round stone hammer is held in the other hand (the right). Hard blows are delivered on the tool’s surface by hitting the hammer (Fig.2).

v1.c10.s1.t2.2

Due to the use of heavy and hard hammer and the delivery of strong blows, the flakes which are detached from the surface of the tool under making are generally thick and of medium size. The resultant scars appearing on the tool surface are deep and rudimentary, and provide crude look to the worked specimen.

v1.c10.s1.t2.3

Fig.2. Direct Percussion Stone Hammer Technique

v1.c10.s1.t2.4

In correspondence with this, the by-product flakes, which come out during the process of flaking the part of the tool, in case of the direct percussion stone hammer technique, retain mostly natural stone or cortexed surface on the upper part (dorsal) and also have similar unprepared striking platform (Fig.1). Besides these completely unprepared flakes, in the flaking debris of Pebble tools some partly or fully flaked dorsal surfaced and striking platformed flakes could also be found. Such by-product flakes are usually the result of reflaking of the same edge or surface in more than one series, or flaking at very close intervals as to cover the part of the earlier flaked surface (Fig.3). The direct percussion stone hammer technique in India was widely practiced during the Lower Palaeolithic period. The Pebble tool complex of the north and the north-western part of this sub-continent was made primarily by this technique (Jayaswal, 1982, p. 45). Not only chopper and chopping tools of such sites as Guler (Lal, 1956), Bilaspur (IAR : 1962-63, pp.37- 38) in Beas and Banganga valleys and Lahchura in Uttar Pradesh (Pant, 1982, pp. 39-44) are characterized by deep, crude flaking, but also many of the flakes which are found in association with these tools have cortexed dorsal and unprepared striking platforms (Jayaswal, 1978, pp. 89-95, Jayaswal, 1982, pp. 45-63). But it may be noted that use of this technique in India appears to be much later in date than the African evidence.

v1.c10.s1.t2.5

For the deposits in the Potwar region which retains the remains of this technique are datable to the Middle Pleistocene period (De Terra & Paterson, 1949, p. 295),

v1.c10.s1.t2.7

Fig.3. Abbevillian Handaxe while African evidence suggest an Early Pleistocene date (1.8 million is the date accepted for the beginning of the Pleistocene) (Clark, 1982, p. 36).

v1.c10.s1.t2.8

Pebble tool tradition in India is named as the ‘Soanian/Sohanian culture’ after the concentration of their find spots in the valley of Soan or Sohan of Pakistan (De Terra & Paterson, 1939, p. 2).

v1.c10.s1.t2.9

It may be put to record that though initiated at a very early date, the direct percussion stone hammer technique continued to be used all over the world in all the succeeding periods. But, later on when this very technique was utilized for making another form, the handaxe, this method was given a different name i.e. ‘Abbevillian’. According to the evidence obtained from Africa, the basic form of handaxe had evolved from chopper and chopping tools (Bordes, 1968, p. 51). It is therefore, logical to presume that the same technique which was used for the making of the chopper and chopping tools were being practiced for making of the earlier forms of handaxes.

A.2 Abbevillian Technique

v1.c10.s1.t3.1

This technique has derived its name from the site L Abbeville in France, where it was recognized for the first time (Bordes, 1968, pp. 52-54). This infact has the same types of flaking scars which are found to be on the Pebble tools made by the direct percussion stone hammer technique. Some time back there was a belief that use of this term would suggest culture contact of Africa or Asia with Europe, where Abbevillian was also recognized as an early stage of handaxe based culture. But this term is now used both for technique and culture stage quite independent from each other. In Europe Abbevillian stage is characterized by crude handaxes having deep flake-scars. The rough pointed tip, unflaked butt and zig-zagged sides suggest that these stone hammered specimens were proto-types of later finely made handaxes of the Acheulian tradition (Fig.3).

v1.c10.s1.t3.2

Not a single collection of the Indian sub-continent has been identified as Abbevillian. But some times the glimpses of this technique can be found in a number of techno-typologically advance industries..Occurence of crude handaxes, for instance, showing stone hammered scars in Acheulian collection evidence practice of the technique under consideration. There is a possibility that such specimens were the ones in which later stage of fine finishing could not be complied. However, there are a few sites such as Mahadeo-piparia (Supekar, 1968), Bariarpur (Joshi, 1961) etc., where along with Pebble tools, handaxes made by stone hammers are reported (Jayaswal, 1982, pp. 71-74). Fine Acheulian working in these are restricted.

A.3 Direct Percussion - Soft/Cylindrical Hammer Technique

v1.c10.s1.t4.1

The continuation of the direct percussion technique was modified in later times by the use of hammers of elongated shape and of softer material such as bone, antler and wood etc. (Bordes, 1968, p. 24). The advantage of the use of such hammer was that the delivered blow could take out only small and shallow flakes (Fig.4).

v1.c10.s1.t4.2

This helped in controlling the chipping process. It was thus possible to make fine tips and well formed shapes of specialized implements like handaxe and cleaver (Fig.5).

v1.c10.s1.t4.3

Fig.4. Cylinder Hammer/Acheulian Technique

v1.c10.s1.t4.4

Some times edge of chopper and chopping tools were also made by this technique. The reminiscents of this technique in the form of small and shallow flake scars, were recognized at Sant Acheul site of France, after which the technique is also known as *Acheulian technique* (Bordes, 1968, pp. 51-52).

v1.c10.s1.t4.5

In Africa, some time back this technique was named as ‘Chellean’. The handaxes made in Acheulian technique are the characteristic form of the Acheulian culture, which appears to have originated in Africa around 1.5 million years ago (Clark, 1982, p. 41). but, its complete successive stages are well documented in western Europe. The Lower, Middle and Upper or Advanced Acheulian stages besides typological modification also evidence development of Acheulian technique. It was the Advanced Acheulian stage which was particularly widespread in European, African and perhaps parts of Asian continents.

v1.c10.s1.t4.6

Numerous sites which are reported from peninsular India are characterised by Advanced or Late Acheulian features. The typo- technological characters of our industries compare well with the Isimila, Olorgesaile and Kalambo fall industries of Africa. These Acheulian collections were studies with a view to comparing the India data, by this author at University of California, Berkeley (USA). It was noted that besides finely made lanceolate and ovate forms of handaxes, the flake cleavers of Indian Acheulian tool- kit also have much technological similarities with the African industries of the later facies of Acheulian.

v1.c10.s1.t4.7

In the absence of the absolute dates, and due to the typo- technological similarities with Advanced Acheulian of Africa, Indian Acheulian appears to be datable between one million and 0.5/0.4 million years. The Acheulian remains of the Indian sub- continent was named as ‘Madrasian Culture’, after the discovery of first cleaver, and also after the concentration of sites yielding handaxes and cleavers near Madras in the later investigations (Krishnaswami, 1948). But, the Acheulian term has also attained wide acceptance in India. Some of very finely worked handaxes of refine Acheulian technique have been reported from Attirampakkam (Krishnaswami, 1938; *Indian Archaeology 1964-65: A Review*, 20), Vadamadurai(*Indian Archaeology 1966-67: A Review*,20-21; Jayaswal, 1985), *Fig.6. Flake*

v1.c10.s1.t4.8

1

v1.c10.s1.t4.9

2

v1.c10.s1.t4.10

Fig.5. Handaxe & Cleaver of Acheulian tradition

v1.c10.s1.t4.11

CORTEX PREPARATION SCAR BULB OF PERCUSSION STRIKING PLATFORM

v1.c10.s1.t4.12

Gudiyam (*Indian Archaeology 1963- 64:A Review*,19) in Tamilnadu, Bhimbetka (Misra, V.N.,1985) and Adamgarh in Madhya Pradesh (Joshi, 1978), and Paisra in Bihar (Pant & Jayaswal, 1991) etc.

B. Techniques for obtaining flakes & blades

v1.c10.s1.t5.1

All the lithic implements discussed above belong to the category of core tools, as these were chipped from a lump of rock or stone. There are, however, majority of tools, in all the three phases of the Palaeolithic period, which are made on flakes (*Fig.6*). A specialized form of flake e.g. long (length more than double or more the breadth), parallel sided and thin is referred to as blade, which evidence culmination of flake detaching technique. For, the attainments of this technique were the input of minimum labour, wastage of very little raw material, but output of large working edges.

v1.c10.s1.t5.2

It may not be just a coincidence that the blade technology was perfected by the *Homo Sapiens* the proto-type of the modern man. Implements made on flakes though were common during many of the Lower Palaeolithic industries, it was the Middle Palaeolithic period in which flake element predominated and the technology of obtaining various forms of flakes were perfected. It is interesting to note that the prehistoric man, contemporary to this period, the Neanderthal man, had cranial capacity at times more than even some of the present day men.

v1.c10.s1.t5.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

v1.c10.s1.t5.4

Fig.7. Flake & Blade Types

v1.c10.s1.t5.5

The basic factor which controls the size and shape of flake is known as mass manipulation or the manner in which the delivered force on a core travels. It has been explained by the prehistorians that the force which is applied on the surface of a stone, traverses through the weaker zones and avoids the regions with accumulated mass. In other words the depressions on the core forms the weaker areas through which force spreads easily and is effective, while the raised or thicker parts of the lump are the obstructions which is avoided by the force. In this mechanism by chipping the surface of lump of stone various kinds of weaker- zones and masses could be artificially created on the core, which could predetermine the form and size of the flake. Prehistoric man had understood this by experience, and could utilize this process to its advantage. Experiments conducted by prehistorians (Bordes, 1961; Bordes & Crabtree, 1969) has helped in replicating and, thus, understanding various flake/blade detaching mechanism of the prehistoric times.

v1.c10.s1.t5.6

Flakes (Fig.6) which are important clues for the Palaeolithic technology can be classified in many ways. For instance, on account of the objective of their detachment these form two broad groups viz., the by-products and the intentionally detached flakes meant for making implements. The by-products or the dressing flakes may be the result of the tool working or core dressing process and are the flaking debris.

v1.c10.s1.t5.7

But, the flakes which were obtained for making tools were also acquired by various methods, such as the Clactonian, the Levallois and the Mousterian etc., which we shall discuss later. But, separation of flakes into a few broad groups and their sub- groups is not easy and beyond debate. Due to this reason, the present author adopted a descriptive criterion for classification of flakes denoting various flaking techniques of the Palaeolithic period of India (Jayaswal, 1978, pp. 15-17). The classification was based on the nature of the dorsal surface and the striking platform. These categories were fifteen (Fig.7). Though descriptive terminologies were used for these categories, a few well defined terms as Levallois flake, Levallois point and blade etc., were retained. A brief description of the proposed classification and important features of the Palaeolithic technology which had emerged from our study has been mentioned below.

Classification of Flake/Blade Types

v1.c10.s1.t6.1

1. *Unprepared Flake* : The flakes of this group had no preparatory marks. That is to say the dorsal surface and the striking platform in this case are cortexed (pebble surface or natural nodule surface).

v1.c10.s1.t6.2

2. *Flakes with unprepared dorsal surface but prepared and unfaceted striking platform* : The dorsal surface of this flake type is similar to the above, but the striking platform, being prepared by single blow, shows an unfaceted plain surface.

v1.c10.s1.t6.3

3. *Flake with Unprepared Dorsal Surface and Prepared & Faceted Striking Platform* : Dorsal surface is similar to the types 1 & 2, but the striking platform of the flakes of this group have prepared striking platform having more than one negative scar ridges or facetes.

v1.c10.s1.t6.4

4. *Flake with Partially Flaked Dorsal Surface and Unprepared Striking Platform* : The specimens with partially flaked dorsal surface have only one or two and rarely three half negatives or preparatory scars and nearly half of the surface of the dorsal and entire striking platform retaining unworked surface.

v1.c10.s1.t6.5

5. *Flake with Partially Flaked Dorsal Surface and Prepared, Unfaceted Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.6

6. *Flake with partially flaked dorsal surface and prepared, faceted striking platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.7

7. *Flake with Prepared Dorsal Surface and Unprepared Striking- platform:* The flake of this group, though having prepared or flaked dorsal surface, do not exhibit any definite pattern of preparation and thus could be classified as Levallois flake.

v1.c10.s1.t6.8

8. *Flake with Prepared or Flaked Dorsal Surface and Prepared, Unfaceted Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.9

9. *Flake with Prepared or Flaked Dorsal Surface and prepared, faceted striking platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.10

10. *Levallois Flake with Unfaceted Striking Platform:* The dorsal surface of this type of flake has quite a few centrally directed half negative scars, forming a hump in the centre of the specimen.

v1.c10.s1.t6.11

11. *Levallois Flake with Faceted Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.12

12. *Levallois Point:* The flake of the group are triangular shaped with a central ridge or a small point/triangular negative scar. The striking platform of these flakes are broad and faceted. These flakes are detached from specially prepared triangular shaped cores with central ridge and/or triangle-scar and ridge, and broad faceted striking platform at the wider end (Bordes, 1961, p.1).

v1.c10.s1.t6.13

13. *Blade with Unfaceted Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.14

14. *Blade with faceted Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.15

15. *Blade with Micro Striking Platform:* This group has very tiny striking platform, which is negligible in comparison to the prominent cone. The evidence of the application of pressure flaking is demonstrated in this category.

v1.c10.s1.t6.16

In correspondence with the above mentioned flake/blade types, nine major types of cores were recognized in the Palaeolithic collections of India (Jayaswal, 1978, p. 18).

v1.c10.s1.t6.17

1. *Unprepared Core.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.18

2. *Core with Unprepared Dorsal Surface and Prepared Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.19

3. *Core with Partially Prepared Dorsal Surface and Unprepared Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.20

4. *Core with Partially Prepared Dorsal and Prepared Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.21

5. *Core with Prepared Dorsal Surface and Unprepared Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.22

6. *Core with Prepared Dorsal Surface and Prepared Striking Platform.*

v1.c10.s1.t6.23

7. *Levallois Core:* The core of this group are also named ‘Tortoise core’. The centrally directed preparation scars form a hump in the centre which resembles the shape of the turtle back. The striking platform is generally prepared at one of the part of the periphery of the core at nearly 90 angle to the dorsal face (Fig.8).

v1.c10.s1.t6.24

8. *Bifacial Discoidal Core* : It is a bifacially prepared roughly circular or oval core with bi-convex cross-section. The flake- scars on the two surfaces denote that the usually elongated centripetal flakes have been removed from them, alternately, after the usual Levallois type of preparation (*Fig.9*). The flaking agree perfectly with that of the discoidal Mousterian cores, but at the same time it differs from them at least on one point. The specimens of the Indian Palaeolithic industries have been flaked bi-facially, while in the case of the European cores it is limited to the dorsal surface only (Bordes, 1961, pp.72-73).

v1.c10.s1.t6.26

Fig.8. Levallois Core

v1.c10.s1.t6.28

Fig.9. Mousterian Core

v1.c10.s1.t6.29

9. *Blade Core* : Cores for detaching blades are generally elongated specimens with ridge or ridges running throughout the length or a major part of the length. These may have one or two striking platform located on the end/ends, at a low angle to the dorsal face.

v1.c10.s1.t6.30

The unprepared flakes and cores have been found in varying proportions in all the three Palaeolithic phases of the Indian sub-continent. As many as four types within this group has been noticed (Jayaswal, 1978, pp.20-21). These are :-

v1.c10.s1.t6.31

(1) Massive flakes,

v1.c10.s1.t6.32

(2) Massive cleaver-shaped flakes,

v1.c10.s1.t6.33

(3) Small flakes, and

v1.c10.s1.t6.34

(4) By-products.

v1.c10.s1.t6.35

(1) Massive Flakes - Unprepared : This group is also known as Clactonian flakes or flakes detached by Block-on-block technique (Bordes, 1961, p. 13). Named after the type site of Clacton-on- Sea in England, the Clactonian technique is said to be characterized by the use of block-on-block method. Big blocks of stones are hit against the stationary block or anvil to acquire flakes. The resultant flakes are massive having wide angle (about 120) between the striking platform and the ventral surface. Due to the heavy blow and hard hit these flakes retain prominent cone of percussion. In India such flakes have been found associating the Pebble tool industries of the Potwar region (De Terra & Paterson, 1939), and the Lower Palaeolithic industry of the Narmada basin (Khatri A.P. 1963, p. 186). In the tradition of typical Clactonian flakes they are characterized by unprepared dorsal surface and striking platform and high angle between the striking platform and the ventral surface. These are also massive sized specimens.

v1.c10.s1.t6.36

(2) Massive Cleaver-shaped Flakes - Unprepared flakes: Though similar in technique and size to the preceding one, this group is characterized by cleaver-shaped flakes. Unique to the Nagarjunakonda valley, the flakes of this category have unprepared dorsal surface and striking platform, but are cleaver shaped (Jayaswal, 1978, p. 20). Technologically they exhibit a very striking feature. Only those boulders which showed projecting natural curvatures of cleaver shape were selected for detaching these flakes (Fig. 10). Thereafter, a single heavy blow at the centre of the curvature was sufficient to produce a broad flake having a cleaver-edge on one side.

v1.c10.s1.t6.37

It may, thus, be said that without preparation, the shape of the flake was determined before its separation from the core. These flakes also seem to be detached by block-on-block technique, but one wonders whether these can be logically grouped under Clactonian flakes, as their shapes could be predetermined on the core in accordance with the available natural curvatures.

v1.c10.s1.t6.38

(3) Small Flakes - Unprepared : Frequently found in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic industries, this group of flakes are smaller than the above two, but larger than the by-products. A sizable percentage of these are retouched and converted into finished tools such as side-scrapers, points etc. The technique applied for obtaining this group appears to be the direct percussion stone hammer technique.

v1.c10.s1.t6.39

Fig. 10. Cleaver from Nagarjunkonda Valley

v1.c10.s1.t6.40

(4) By-products : This group of flakes frequently occurs in the Pebble tool industries. The stone hammer direct percussion technique, whenever applied for manufacturing crude implements like chopper and chopping tools, produces a number of these flakes. But, the separation of by-products from the small intentionally detached flakes of the third group, needs caution. Though it may not always be possible to group them with confidence, this author has suggested a tentative method (Jayaswal 1978, pp. 7, 17). It was observed that the by-products are usually much smaller than those flakes of an industry which have either been converted into finished tools or were seemingly meant to be so. These are comparatively smaller than the biggest scar appearing on the artifact of an industry. Often they are not retouched and do not carry definite marks of preparation. It may be mentioned that some of the flakes with partially flaked dorsal surface and flaked but unfaceted striking platforms also belong to the by-product categories.

v1.c10.s1.t6.41

It may be mentioned that in the proposed classification there are three other flake types namely, flakes with unprepared dorsal surface but prepared striking platform, partially prepared flakes, and prepared flakes which deserve a few line of explanation. If compared with some of the flakes of the typical Clactonian industries of England, several specimens of the first two types may be found strikingly similar to them. The partially prepared flakes usually bear one or two half negatives on the dorsal surface. It can hardly be proved that these half negatives are marks of core preparation. But at times it is equally difficult to disapprove it either. Many specimens which have been grouped by us as prepared flakes, similarly may be termed as Levallois, if attempts were made to find parallels in some of the European publications (Bordes F. 1961).

v1.c10.s1.t6.42

There are others in this very group which seem to be the result of imperfect Levallois technique and may be termed as ‘Proto- Levallois’ or even ‘Atypical Levallois’ (Bordes, 1961, p. 13).

v1.c10.s1.t6.43

Levallois technique : It is one of the most misunderstood techniques of the Palaeolithic period. Not only there has been debate for the use of nomenclatures, which was mentioned earlier in this paper, but even the processes involved in this technique are not always clear. F. Borde’s explanations have been found to be most logical and are based on practical experience (Bordes, 1961, pp. 17-20). His definitions and technological classifications have been mostly followed here.

v1.c10.s1.t6.44

The broad definition of Levallois technique includes more than one method of obtaining flake and blade. The principle underlying this technique is that the form of the flake/blade is predetermined on the core before it is detached. This is achieved by the preparation of cores. Preparation of core is confined primarily to the dorsal or the surface from which the flake is to be obtained, and the striking platform on which the final blow is delivered. The dorsal surface is prepared with a view to diverting force in various ways, such as to have circular, oval, cleaver-shaped, triangular or rectangular periphery. The distribution of the applied force in these manners could yield flakes of the desired shapes. On the other hand the nature, extent and position of striking platform (the angle between the dorsal and the platform) also needed preparation. The position and strength of blow was another important factor for the process. Due to various ways of the core preparation at least four distinct categories of flakes could be obtained by application of the Levallois technique. These are - Levallois technique for oval and circular flakes, Levallois point technique, Para-Levallois, and Levallois blade technique.

v1.c10.s1.t6.45

(1) Levallois Technique for detaching Oval and Circular Flakes: Made on medium sized oval or circular lump of stone, this technique is also known as ‘Tortoise core techniques’. The dorsal surface of a typical tortoise core is prepared by centrally directed preparatory flakes, which form a hump in the centre. The striking platform is prepared at one of the ends by removing small chips or facetes (Fig.8). The applied blow on the striking platform in this case result in the breakage of circular or oval flake depending on the form of the core and the placement of the hump on the core.

v1.c10.s1.t6.46

In our classification the oval and round shaped flakes of types 10 and 11 belong to this category. In the Paleolithic collections of India the use of Levallois technique is quite well represented. For example, in the Lower Palaeolithic industries the proportion of Levallois flakes occupies upto 15%, while in some of the Middle Palaeolithic industries they form 42% of the flake group (Jayaswal, 1978, p. 199). This feature is quite contrary to the general belief that Levallois technique is poorly represented in the Indian sub-continent.

v1.c10.s1.t6.47

(2) Technique of Levallois Point : The type 12 of our flake/blade classification includes those triangular flakes which were detached by Levallois technique. Levallois point in general are very rare in all the Indian Palaeolithic phase (Jayaswal, 1978, p. 199).

v1.c10.s1.t6.48

In the Lower Palaeolithic phase only though almost fifty percent of the industries had Levallois points, yet their number were found to be very limited (Jayaswal, 1978, Table - 2, pp.138-139). The percentage of Levallois points in the Lower Palaeolithic industries never exceeded 1.9%. In comparison to this, the type is well represented in the Middle Palaeolithic industries of the sub-continent (Jayaswal, 1978, Table - 6, pp 170 - 171). But only three industries viz., Vedullacervu, Tamkur and Mahadeo-piparia evidence the use of this technique.

v1.c10.s1.t6.49

This feature is very different from Europe, particularly the western part, where Levallois technique in general and Points in particular were predominating typical Mousterian industries.

v1.c10.s1.t6.50

(3) Para-Levallois Technique : This technique is also known in the literature on the Palaeolithic period as Victoria - west and Vaal technique, after the regions in Africa, where Acheulian cleavers made on broad flakes were found in plenty (Bordes, 1968, p. 69). The sides or the periphery of large boulder or block of stone is prepared by removing a few large flakes from top and bottom. Striking platform is prepared on a part of the top face. A heavy blow when delivered at the striking platform, results in a broad cleaver-shaped flakes with sharp and broad cutting edge (Fig.11). A little working on the side or sides of such a flake should make a perfect cleaver. In the Palaeolithic industries of India the presence of this technique is found in most of the advanced Achulian industries e.g., Attirampakkam, Paisra, Belan valley etc. Dominant proportion of such cleavers and cleaver- flakes were noticed by this author in the tool-kit of Lalitpur and Chirki Nevasa (Jayaswal, 1978, p. 22).

v1.c10.s1.t6.51

The raw material used for Lalitpur industry is granite while for Chiriki-Nevasa the dolerite was used. The big blocks of stones in both of the cases were obtained from the nearby outcrops of Bundelkhand granite and dyke of dolerite. The angular and irregular surfaces of the blocks were prepared in the manner of Para-Levallois, and cleaver-shaped flakes were detached. The flakes detached were mostly broad and were of such perfection that only a little secondary working was needed to covert them into perfect finished cleavers.

v1.c10.s1.t6.52

Fig.11. Para-Levallois Cleaver-flake from Paisra

v1.c10.s1.t6.53

(4) *Levallois Blade Technique* : Blades detached by Levallois technique evidence a transition between the flake detaching technique and the blade techniques. In fact it is imperfect or proto-technique of obtaining blade. The broad and rectangular specimens of this category many a times have lesser length in comparison to the ratio of breadth. Thus, they fall short of the definition of true blades. Presence of this technique, to the best of our knowledge is neither reported nor has this author observed in the Indian Stone Age collections. Various scholars have experimented on the different ways of obtaining blades. The result acquired helped understanding and elaborating the processes of blade detaching techniques. Experiments carried out by Bordes and Crabtree (1969), has well demonstrated the process. They write, “ the first step of core preparation is to eliminate the rounded surface and establish at first striking platform for preparation of a ridge which is to guide the first blade.

v1.c10.s1.t6.54

Once a striking platform is established by a side blow at one end, one can immediately begin taking off blades, the first of which will have its dorsal side completely covered with cortex” (Bordes & Crabtree 1969, pp. 3-4).

v1.c10.s1.t6.55

In many types the striking platform is almost at a right angle to the plane of the core. Various methods like ‘pressure flaking’ (Sankalia, 1964, pp 34-8), and indirect percussion have been suggested for detaching a series of blades by rotating a single core. The cores could be of a various shapes i.e., rectangular, pyramidal and prismatic etc.

v1.c10.s1.t6.56

Blades are rare in the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic industries of India (Jayaswal, 1978, p. 199). The maximum frequency points of the two phases are 6% and 12% respectively. But, the industries of the Upper Palaeolithic period of the Chittoor and Kurnool districts of Andhra Pradesh, Belan valley of Uttar Pradesh and Upper Son valley of Madhya Pradesh indicate that more than fifty percent of flake/blade group belonged to the category of blade. It was also observed that the blades of the Belan and the Son valleys were comparatively longer than those of the Andhra Pradesh group (Jayaswal, 1978, p. 192). But, in comparison to Europe the blade and blade tools of the Upper Palaeolithic phase of India are marked by less perfect techniques and restricted typological forms.

v1.c10.s1.t6.57

The detailed technological studies which were carried out by the present author some time back have brought to notice some interesting features. For instance, it was noticed that the technological attainments of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in India did not differ widely from each other.

v1.c10.s1.t6.58

However, there seems to be a general preference for cruder techniques in the Lower Palaeolithic industries.

v1.c10.s1.t6.59

The proportion of advanced techniques such as Levallois and blade detaching techniques are slightly better in the Middle Palaeolithic phase. This position is very much different than that of Europe, where the Levallois technique is one of the diagnostic traits of the Middle Palaeolithic phase.

v1.c10.s1.t6.60

Similarly, it was observed that, the broad and oval shaped flakes were more common in the Lower Palaeolithic phase of India, while the elongated and round flakes were somewhat more frequent in the Middle Palaeolithic. Besides, no evidence could be retrieved to suggest that particular shapes of flakes were acquired for some typical tool forms. The only exception to this observation was the cleaver-shaped flake of the Acheulian industries. Further, it was noted that the shape of the parent core, its preparation, the angle of stroke given to detach the flake and the amount of force applied for the purpose, were the major factors responsible for determining the shape of flake/blade. During the course of our analysis of the Palaeolithic technology, it was noted that raw material is the other factor which seems to have influenced the techniques and size of flakes and blades (Jayaswal, 1978, pp. 206-211). The form and nature of raw material in a particular region i.e., the size, shape and form of nodules, pebbles and block of stones along with their composition appears to be the guiding factors. For instance, if only small pebbles were available as raw material in a region, then the prehistoric man of the region was not in a position to make very big tools out of them. On the contrary, if big blocks of stones were to be selected for the purpose in another region, the first action of the prehistoric man for manufacturing implements would be to avail manageable flakes from them and then work them out into desired tools. The Lower Palaeolithic industries from the factory sites of the Belan-Seoti valley provide illustrative example of the latter instance. Though the Lower Palaeolithic industries in general are dominated by artifacts made on core, yet the Belan group of industries show the predominance of flakes and flake-tools. For, it was necessary in this region to detach flakes first, from the big quartzite blocks and then convert them into finished tools or some times into cores for detaching flakes and blades.

v1.c10.s1.t6.61

It was also attempted to determine the influence of the composition of raw material on technology, during our study of Palaeolithic techniques (Jayaswal, 1972-73, pp. 64-70). For this, twelve Middle Palaeolithic industries were selected and classified within three groups on the basis of the use of raw material. These were - (1) Industries made on quartzite (rough grained rock); (2) Industries made on quartzite and minerals (rough grained and fine grained siliceous stones); and, (3) Industries consisting of tools of minerals only (fine grained siliceous rocks like chert, jasper, chalcedony etc.). The industries of Vedullachervu, Nandipalle, Vadamanu and Ramgarhwa belonged to the first group, while Mahaeo-piparia, Adamgarh, Anagwadi and Kurnool show the use of both the types of stones. The last group is formed by the industries of Tamakur, Nalgonda, Luni and Kovalli.

v1.c10.s1.t6.62

The percentages of Levallois element (both flake and point) indicated that this technique was more frequently employed in areas where quartzite was used for manufacturing tools. Conversely, it was least in vogue in those industries which were made on fine grained stones. In case of such industries where both the kinds of stones were used, it is quartzite which seems to be more suitable for manufacturing Levallois flakes and points.

v1.c10.s1.t6.63

Technological variation within a typological group of industries of the Lower Palaeolithic phase also depended on the nature of raw material. The industries of Nagarjunakonda-1 and Chirki-Nevasa, for instance, belonged to one typological group viz., cleaver dominated Acheulian group. Though cleavers were found to be dominating both of these industries, great variation was noticed in the techniques of detaching cleaver-flakes. In Nagarjunakonda valley big boulders of quartzite were available to the Acheulian man. He cleverly exploited their natural curvatures for obtaining cleaver-shaped flakes without artificially preparing the surface of the cores (Fig.10). In contrast to this at Chirki-Nevasa, the raw material was obtained from the nearby dykes of dolerite. The angular blocks of stones needed a thorough preparation before detaching desired flakes. The cleaver-flake of Chirki-Nevasa tool-kit evidence use of Para-Levallois (Fig.11). The form of raw material, thus seems to be one of the significant factors responsible for the predominance of unprepared cleaver- shaped flakes in the Nagarjunakonda industry and of the prepared and Levallois flakes in Chirki-Nevasa industry.

C. Techniques for modifying edge & tip of tools

v1.c10.s1.t7.1

Careful and controlled flaking was done to modify the edge and tip of artifacts throughout the Palaeolithic period, which is referred to as retouching. This effort was particularly needed to give shape, increase sharpness of the edge and even blunting the edge of a flake or a blade. Various types of scrapers and pointed implements were made by retouching. Retouching during the Palaeolithic period was performed by direct percussion technique and by using both stone hammer or soft and cylindrical hammer. These are categorized within two types e.g., the low angle retouch and the high angle retouch. Low angle retouching was done primarily during the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic phases when edge of flake needed to be sharpened. The angle of the retouched portion in this case range around 60° - 70°. But, with the prevalence of blade technology when both the edges were sharp there was a need to blunt one of the edges for hafting purposes. It was due to this requirement that retouching at high angle (more than 70° - 75°) had to be initiated. During Upper Paleolithic various forms of backed blades or knives were made by high angle retouching or blunting. In India though both the types of retouchings were done, the amount of modification of the form of edges were not a very general practice. With the result, our Palaeolithic tool-kits appear mediocre in comparison to the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic implement collections of Europe.

v1.c10.s1.t7.2

The bone and antler industry which had flourished during, the Upper Palaeolithic phase of Europe (Bordes, 1968, pp.147-166), is not well represented in India. Though there are a few claims for bone tools, these are either lost or if available do not evidence good workmanship. But, the specimen which has been reported from Gravel III of Belan, Uttar Pradesh, and referred to as ‘Mother goddess figurine’ (Misra, V.D. 1977, Pl.V) evidence good craftsmanship, but appears to be an isolated example of its kind. In correspondence with the paucity of bone craftsmanship, the Upper Palaeolithic collections in India, in general, lack presence of burins. Even when present this type is simple formed and much restricted in number (Jayaswal 1978, pp. 174 - 193).

v1.c10.s1.t7.3

It may be recalled that burin is a specialized implement form which was used for working and engraving bone, antler and ivory (Jayaswal, 1987, pp. 42 - 45). It may not be a mere coincidence that both burin industry and the bone/ivory craftsmanship flourished in Europe during upper Palaeolithic times.

II. Techniques Of the Mesolithic Period

v1.c10.s2.1

The diagnostic tool group of the Mesolithic period, throughout the world has been identified as Microliths. The tiny artefacts of this category are characterized by two features. One that these are made on bladelet (micro-blade having breadth 12 mm or less). The other, that at least one of the edges of these specimens was deliberately blunted by high angle retouching. There are a group of implements in Mesolithic tool-kit which fulfil these two criteria. Microliths were made in geometric forms such as triangular and trapezoidal shapes, and non- geometrical forms, lunate or various types of a backed bladelets (Fig.12).

v1.c10.s2.2

The provision for hafting (by blunting of edge) and the small size are so pronounced in case of microliths that the presumption hold good that this group was used in composite form, (putting together more than one tool) on a base of wood or bone (Jayaswal, 1989, vide Fig.10).

v1.c10.s2.3

The technology of microlith making appears to be of local origin in India (Jayaswal, in Press). The appearance and the earliest existence of microliths in our area of study is in association with the fulfledged blade industries of the Upper Palaeolithic period. The techno-typological features borne by microliths indicate that this technocratic group was modification and development over the blade technology. The dimension of the blade element was reduced to form bladelets. Besides, the earlier tradition of modifying edge/edges at high angle was also adopted as an essential process for giving shapes to the implements. Besides, the beginnings of microlith making in central India is datable to circa twenty-fourth millennium B.C. The archaeological remains from Gravel III of the Belan-Seoti valley (Pant, 1982, pp. 101-102) and the Son valley (Sharma & Clark, 1983, p.

v1.c10.s2.4

Fig.12. Microliths

v1.c10.s2.5

287), indicate that the Upper Palaeolithic industries which are dated by the Radiocarbon method between 24,000 and 18,000 B.C. are associated with microliths. It is interesting to note that right from the beginning when pigmy tools formed only a small proportion (10%) of the tool-kit, the microlithic technology appears in developed form. But the implement forms are mostly non-specific. For, the microlithic group is dominated by backed- bladelets and presence of a few lunates. Such perfect geometric forms as triangle and trapeze are either absent or when present (triangles are generally found in this phase), these are in negligible proportion and mostly atypical forms (Pant, 1982, pp. 104-105). It may, therefore, be concluded that, making of microliths emerged in the last phase of the Pleistocene period. The technological trait seems to have developed from the blade industries and thus was innovation. Similar situation is also found in Europe where microliths appear in the Upper Palaeolithic industries of the later Pleistocene epoch. The tool-kit of Magda-lenian culture is associated with microliths (Bordes, 1968, p. 164)

v1.c10.s2.6

Microliths predominate (up to 80% of the finished tools) all the Mesolithic industries of India, be it of ‘Early’ or ‘Advanced’ stage. Geometric forms particularly triangle, became more popular during Mesolithic times (Jayaswal, in Press). All the other remaining techno-typological features remained almost unaltered. It has also been shown by this author that microlithic technology continued to persist for a very long period in Central India. Undisrupted continuation of this technology is evident in the hills of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, even up to the Historical period (Jayaswal, In press). In this case, microliths existed as parallel technological trait with Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Iron Age cultures. It was observed that though there is a gradual decrease of frequency of microliths from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic periods, there is a sudden fall in the proportion of microliths during the early Historical period (Iron Age).

v1.c10.s2.7

Besides, the general techno-typology of the microlithic toolkit remains somewhat unchanged during the earlier three culture stages, while there is marked increase in trapeze during the Iron Age.

III. Techniques of the Neolithic Period

v1.c10.s3.1

The lithic technologies of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic times are marked by a process of development in which two tendencies were pronounced. One, the economy of labour and raw material, which can be seen in terms of the Levallois technique to the blade detaching technique. In case of the latter, expenditure of very limited time and wastage of stone was able to produce much larger and sharper working edges, than was acquired by the flakes obtained by Levallois techniques. Second, during the course of this development the size of implements was gradually decreasing, the culmination of which can be seen in the case of the microliths. Contrary to this the lithic technological attainment appears to reverse back to the earlier technological stage during the Neolithic period. For instance, not only large to very large size tool making was initiated, which compares well with Acheulian tools of the Lower Palaeolithic times, but also input of laborious processes were being involved. The Neolithic technological innovation is marked by the Ground stone tools or axes. Many forms of axes, chisels, picks, hoes, were made which together form tool-kit of a carpenter. Making of a typical Neolithic axe involves three stages of working (Sankalia 1964, pp. 79-82).

v1.c10.s3.2

In the first stage the basic form of the implement is chipped by direct percussion method and using stone hammer. In the second stage, the prominent ridges appearing from the earlier flaking are removed by pecking method. In pecking method very small flakes are carefully detached so as to bring down the raised surfaces of the tool. The third process is very lengthy and tedious, in which the surface of the tool is ground. Grinding process was performed on a stone anvil by sprinkling sand and water and rubbing parts of the implement one by one (Fig. 13). This technique is so characteristic of Neolithic period that the tools are referred to as ‘ground stone tools’. The aim to perform this process was to provide toughness to the implements (Jayaswal, 1992). Neolithic implements have been obtained from various parts of the Indian sub-continent. In the north, Kashmir valley has Burzoham group of sites, where along with the axes, chisel, pick and hoe are common types.

v1.c10.s3.3

Fig. 13. Method of Grinding Stone Implements

v1.c10.s3.4

In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Neolithic tool-kit comprises small triangular axes as the major type, along with a considerable proportion of quaerns and mullers and microliths. The east Indian Neolithic complex is characterized by shouldered axes. While the south Indian sites which have concentration in Karnataka, Andhra and Tamilnadu, have axes similar to the Uttar Pradesh and Bihar region. Though techno-typological features of the Neolithic tool-kit of India compares well, in general term with other parts of the world, particularly West Asia, the cultural debris of this region is of later date.

First 117 of 156 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)